RH 17 : 새로써본 리만가설증명 - 나의 세번째 시도.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Professor Kim,

Thank you for the file.  I will give the revision to the editors.
Your paper is with a reviewer.

Sincerely,
Maureen Schupsky

 

 

                                                                                                              March 7, 2007.

 

Dear Mr. Maureen Schupsky,

 

Since I omitted in equation (0.3) and (0.4) the " ∂ " sign in the domain of integral, I corrected

and send my pdf file once again for your follow-up action. While, I am anxious to know

about whether my article is being reviewed or not at your end. Please advise me of any

information available at this moment.

 

Sincerely yours,

Jeong Geon Kim / Seoul.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                            

                                                                                                               Feb 24, 2007      
                                                                                                      
Dear Mr. Maureen Schupsky,

Thank you very much for your quick reply and please use the attached pdf file , once more
corrected ( I add one period (.) in page 8 and add "mo" in commemorative issue in last line
of page 12) , which is complete for publication once Annals decides to accept my article.

During last 2 years, I spent my whole time to make the proof even in my bed , so it was my
best times ever in my life and I'd like say adieu to myself to RH now and I'd like to express
my deep gratitude to you Mr. Schupsky for your kind assistances rendered to me so far.

The proof which I made is now out of my hand, because it is solved problem in my world.

I wish you Mr. Schupsky and Annals of Mathematics all the best !

Yours Sincerely,
Jeong Geon Kim / Seoul, Korea.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Annals of Mathematics" <annals@Math.Princeton.EDU>
To: "JEONG GEON KIM" <jeogkim@kornet.net>
Cc: "Annals of Mathematics" <annals@Math.Princeton.EDU>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Request for Review : Proof of Riemann Hypothesis (RH)


> Dear Professor Kim,
>
> Thank you for the electronic file.  Your paper and your cover letter
> will be given to the editors.
>
> Sincerely,
> Maureen Schupsky
> Annals staff
 

 

 

                                                                                                                    Feb 23, 2006

 

 

Annals of Mathematics

Fine Hall, Washington Road

Princeton, NJ 08544

U.S.A.

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

 

My name is Mr. Jeong Geon Kim and I had experiences of disqualifying for my previous

two papers on the subject from Annals twice during last two years. However, I have been

pondering about the RH continuously since then and I finished recently my new proof.

 

Therefore, I hereby cordially request editors and referees of Annals of Mathematics to

 review my new article of the proof of Riemann Hypothesis again.

 

Please acknowledge the receipt of my article attached herewith at your end and

please also notify me whether my new article will be considered for review or not .

 

Wishing to hear from you soon,

 

Yours Sincerely,

Jeong Geon Kim / Seoul, Korea

 

                                                                                             

                                                                                                                        Feb. 17, 2007

 

 

Dear Professor Harold M. Edwards,

 

 

How do you do Sir?

 

 

First of all, please allow me to introduce myself to you Sir. I am an amateur math lover

and I had experiences of requesting Annals of Mathematics to review my previous

articles of the proof of RH, two poorly written amateur articles, during last two years and

my last two trials were all rejected from them. And I also found myself many logical errors

therein through those rejections.

 

However, the reason why I dare to write an e-mail to you  Sir  is that I recently finished my

new article for subject from the whole new approach , as I think, and I hereby attached my

pdf file of the proof of Riemann Hypothesis for your kind review, if possible.

 

I am 53 year old Korean who has been spending times on studying math and research

at home for RH after the derailment from the business career in 1996 and I am not a math

majored man and I got BA in business administration in 1978, but, my hobby has been 

always math and physics since my young school years.

 

I do hope that this e-mail might not disturb your precious times, however, I'd like to hear

whether I am now dreaming ' a fool's nightmare ' or not from the professional like you, Sir.

FYR, my article was sent also to Professors N.D. Elkies, Shlomo Sternberg,  Peter Sarnak,

Sir Michael Berry and also to Annals of Mathematics for their review, if possible.

 

Please allow my impertinences and I beg your understanding in this matter.

 

Wishing you all the best.

 

Yours sincerely,

Jeong Geon Kim / Seoul, Korea.

 

 

 

                                                                                                            

                                                                                                               Feb. 16, 2007

 

Dear Mr. John Derbyshire,

 

 

How do you do Sir?

 

 

First of all, please allow me to introduce myself to you. I am an amateur math lover in Seoul,

Korea and I am one of the readers of your book " Prime Obsession", for which I bought

recently from amazon.com and I am still in the middle of reading your beautiful book.

 

By the way, the reason why I am writing an e-mail to you is, as an amateur, I wrote

recently by myself at home the proof of Riemann Hypothesis, which is the subject of your

book also, therefore, I would like to hereby send my proof pdf file attached herewith for your

kind review, if possible.

 

FYR, my same article was recently sent to Professors Noam D. Elkies, Shlomo Sternberg at

Harvard, Peter Sarnak in Princeton and Annals of Mathematics and Sir Michael V. Berry in

U.K. requesting them to review, if possible at their side. While, I had experiences of failing

twice to be selected for the Annals with my poorly written article for the same subject during

last two years.

 

As a common holder of interests in RH, I do hope you may read my article at your discretion

without any burden or just for your leisure times, though my level of understanding in RH is

trivial in comparison with yours.

 

Wishing you the very best and I thank again for your book as a reader.

 

Yours sincerely,

Jeong Geon Kim / Seoul, Korea.

 

                                                                                                                   Feb. 15, 2007

 

Dear Professor N.D. Elkies,

 

 

How do you do Sir?

 

First of all, please let me introduce myself to you ,Sir.  I am an amateur math lover in Seoul,

Korea and I found out your website through my web-surfing by chance maybe last year

and I read some articles of them, but, frankly, I did not fully understand them.

 

By the way, I have been trying to prove the RH for about two years by myself at my

home and I recently finished my own proof attached herewith for your kind review,

if possible. I'm not a math major man and my major was business administration

in my university years in 1974-77. However, since I had an hobby of math/physics

in my school years, now I am spending my times in my private research being done

at my home in Seoul since my derailment from the quite competitive business career as

a salaryman in 1996.

 

During last two years, I had submitted my poorly written articles on the proof of RH

twice to the Annals of Mathematics in Princeton and all of those trials were rejected

and failed and I also found out myself there were many logical errors therein.

 

The article now being sent to you, more or less impertinently, also was sent to Annals

a few days ago requesting them to review fully whether if it is eligible for selection for the Annals.

 

Since I think that we are in a same boat, in a sense, as an amateur and as a professional,

I dare to send my article for your kind attention.  FYR, my same article was sent to Prof.

Shlomo Sternberg and Prof. Peter Sarnak in Princeton asking them to review, if possible.

 

For my part, as an amateur, I do want to hear from professionals like you whether I

am dreaming a fool's nightmare or not. Candidly speaking, I'm serious in this regard.

 

Please allow my impertinences in this matter and I wish you all the best.

 

Yours sincerely,

Jeong Geon Kim / An Amateur Math Lover in Seoul, Korea.

 

 

 

 

Dear Sir Michael V. Berry,

Thank you so much Sir for sending me a warm advice. I will keep that in
mind and will try to sharpen my edges of logical grounds. Thanks again.

Sincerely yours, Jeong Geon Kim

 

 

Dear Mr Kim,

Thank you for sending your most recent attempt at a proof of the Riemann
hypothesis. I predict that you will once again have difficulty convincing
mathematicians that it is correct, but I wish you all the best.

Yours sincerely, Michael Berry

Tracie
-----------------------------------------
Mrs Tracie Anderson
Secretary to the Theory Group
H H Wills Physics Laboratory
University of Bristol
Tyndall Avenue
Bristol
BS8 1TL, UK
 
Tel:  +44 (0)117 928 8735
Fax:  +44 (0)117 925 5624

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          

                                                                                                            Feb. 10, 2007

 

 

Dear Professor Shlomo Sternberg,

 

 

How are you Sir?

 

You might remember me if you see the subject, It's me who had sent you e-mails

appreciating about your book a few years ago. I always introduced myself to you

as a Korean Fan of you.  Sir, do you remember me now ?

 

Last year, I had sent you my poorly written amateur article on the proof of Riemann

Hypothesis by e-mail without your prior consent , but with my pleasure for my part.

 

That article was rejected from the editors of Annals of Mathematics in Princeton last 

autumn and I also found out my errors in my reasoning and arguments therein.

 

I think that you might not read my article due to your busy schedule or you maybe

thought that the article was not worth while to make a comment from your side.

 

While, however, I have been studying math continuously by myself at home and

pondering about RH quite long time since then. Finally, I recently finished my new

article on the subject, though I do hope that my new article will not be " a fool's

nightmare " again this time.

 

Although I do not know of your intention to read my new article or not , however,

I dare to send it to you for your leisure of no burden, or for your kind review if you

think that it is worth while to read anyway. For your reference, my article was sent

also to Professor Peter Sarnak in Princeton and to Professor Sir Michael V. Berry

in U.K.

 

Wishing you the very best, Professor. And please allow my impertinences.

 

Sincerely yours,

Jeong Geon Kim / A math lover and a  fan  in Seoul, Korea.

 

 

 

Dear Mrs. Tracie Anderson,

Please relay my attached letter and pdf file to Sir Michael Berry. Thank you so much !

Due to the minor typing mistakes, I send this e-mail again. Sorry and forgive me.

 

 

                                                                                             

                                                                                                        Feb. 9, 2007

 

Dear Sir Michael Berry,

 

 

How are you Sir?

 

You might remember that a Korean amateur math lover had sent you a poor

amateur article on the Proof of Riemann Hypothesis last year. That's me and

I had sent to you an article, poorly written, however you sent me a short reply

that you will read anyhow. That small event really made me happy at that time.

 

While, I have been studying math continuously and also pondering about RH by

myself even though I received a reply of rejection for my last article, which was

the same one sent to you,  from the Annals of Mathematics in Princeton last

autumn. Through that rejection, I also found myself some errors in my reasonings. 

 

However, I have been trying to make the new proof  of RH continuously at home

and I finished my new proof recently. So, I hereby send it to you for your kind

review, if possible, or please just read it without any burden for your leisure.

 

Since I think that you are one of the most prominent professional scholars in

the field of RH research from the physics side, I darely send my new article with

pleasure , without your prior consent.

 

Wishing you the very best and please allow my impertinences.

 

Sincerely yours,

Jeong Geon Kim / An amateur math lover in Seoul, Korea.

 

 

                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                 Feb. 8, 2007

 

Dear Professor Peter Sarnak,

 

 

How are you Sir?

 

In connection with the subject,  today I  tentatively finished my proof of RH , of which

outlines were already sent to you by my previous e-mails. Thus,  I hereby attached

it for your review, if permissible and acceptable at your side.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

Jeong Geon Kim / Seoul.

 

 

*** Annals of Mathematics 에 제출해서 그들의 검토를 받아 보았으나 Reviewer 인 프린스턴대

      Peter Sarnak 교수로 부터  결국 Reject 된 나의 논문임.  본 논문은 저의 저작권이 있는 글

      이므로 열람용도외의 사용은 금합니다. 참조 하여 주시기 바랍니다.

 

RH 3 JEONG GEON KIM (4).pdf

0.18MB